With more than $2 billion dollars in federal research grants at stake, the two sides will argue before a federal judge as the university pushes back on the administration’s demands.
Lawyers for Harvard University will argue in federal court on Monday that the federal government’s freeze of more than $2 billion in grants and contracts is illegal and should be reversed.
In filings in U.S. District Court in Boston, Harvard’s attorneys say the federal funding cuts imposed by the Trump administration threaten vital research in medicine, science and technology. The school’s lawsuit aims to block the Trump administration from withholding federal funding « as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard. »
The Trump administration has said it froze the funding because Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to address antisemitism on campus.
The hearing is expected to last just one day. Harvard is asking the judge, Allison D. Burroughs, for a summary judgment in hope of speeding the matter along, though it’s unclear when she might rule on that request. And, whichever way she decides, legal experts NPR talked with don’t expect a full resolution anytime soon, given the likelihood that either side will appeal a ruling.
While Harvard is the only school in court, colleges and universities around the country are watching the proceedings closely. Dozens of other institutions have also had millions in federal grants frozen.
« Across the higher ed landscape, across the entire sector, institutions recognize that what happens in this case will really have a profound impact », says Jodie Ferise, a lawyer in Indiana who specializes in higher education and represents colleges and universities.
« There is nothing different about Harvard University than there is about some Midwestern, smaller private college », Ferise says. « Everyone is watching and worrying about the extent to which the federal government is seeking to control the higher education sector. »Harvard’s arguments
In court documents, Harvard’s lawyers make several arguments. The first is that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, known as APA, which says that federal agencies cannot abruptly change procedures without reason. They argue that there are procedures, established by Congress for « revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns », that the government did not follow.
